Chap. VIII. The HISTORY of the PURITANS. 673 II. The other branch of power annexed to the epifcopal office, is the K. Charles i. tf.t jr64o. i ole ri g ht o f fpiritual ; this the bifhop ferns in fome fort to difclaim ; " Whoever (lays he) challenged a S O L E jurifdktion ? We of the right. willingly grant that prefbyters have, and ought to have, a jurifdiétion ofjurifditii- " within their own charge; and that in all great affairs of the church gp Hall, they ought to be confulted. We admit, that bithops of old had their " ecclefiaßical council of prefbyters ; and we HI have the lame in our ca deans andchapters ; but we fay that the fuperiority of jurifdiétion is fo .r in the bifhop, that prefbyters may not exercife it without him, and " that the exercife of external jurifdiéton is derived from, by, and under " him, to rhofe who exercife it within his diocefe." This his lordfhip proves from feveral teftimonies out-of the fathers. The Smetlymnuans agree with his lordfhip, that in the ancient church, Smedymnu- bifhops could do nothing without the confent of the clergy ; nor in ca- us for theja- rifdsEtian of fes of excommunication and abfolution without the allowance of the presbyters. wholebody of the church to which the delinquent belonged, as appears from the teftimònies ofTertullian andSt. Cyprian; but they aver, upon their certain knowledge, that our engiifh bithops have exercifed feveral parts of ecclefiaßical jurifdidion without the prefbyters. And further (fay they) where, in all antiquity, do we meet with fuch delegates, as lay. chancel- lors, commjQàries, and others as never received impofition of hands ? Thefe offices were not known in thofe times ; nor can any inßance be produced of laity or clergy who had them for above four hundred years after Chrift. Upon the whole, allowing that in the third or fourth century, bi- fhops were a diflin5t order from prefbyters, yet fay thefe divines, our mo- dern bithops of the church of England differ very widely from them ; the primitive bithops were elefted by a free fuffrageof the prefbyters, but ours by a congé d' ellire from the king. They did not proceed againft ved that the feats bithops elect might firft be ordained prefbyters, in theyear 161o, Ban- craft replied there was no need of it, finte ordinations bypresbyters was valid ; upon which the laid bilhop concurred in their confecration. And yet lower, when the archbifhop of Spalata wás in England, he defired bifhop Moreton to re-ordain a perfon that had been or- dained beyond fea, that he might be more capable of preferment; to which the bilhop re- plied, that it could not be done, but to the fcandal of the reformed churches, whereinhe would have no hand. The fame reverend prelate adds, in his Apol. Cathol. that to ordain was the jusantiguum of prefbyters. To thefe may be added the teftimony of bifhop Bur- net, whore words are there, " -As for the notion of diftind offices of bifhop and prefbyter, " -I confers'ris not fo clear to me, and therefore fince I look upon the facramental odious, as the highefl of facred performances, I cannot but acknowledge thole who are empow- ered for them, mull beof the highelt office in the church.." Vindication of the church of Scotland, p. 336. VoL. I, . 4 R cri-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=